Navarro-Guardado v. Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WENDY YESSENIA NAVARRO- No. 22-68
GUARDADO; JERSON NEHEMIAS Agency Nos.
NAVARRO-GUARDADO, A208-757-503
A208-757-504
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Wendy Yessenia Navarro-Guardado and Jerson Nehemias Navarro-
Guardado, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition pro se for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir.
2020). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish they were or would be persecuted on account of a protected
ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s
“desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random
violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”); Pagayon v.
Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute, standing alone,
does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground). Thus,
petitioners’ asylum claims fail. Because petitioners failed to establish any nexus at
all, they also failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017).
We do not consider petitioners’ claims as to the proposed particular social
group of “families with young men and women” because the BIA did not decide
the issue, see Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011)
(review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA), and petitioners do not
contend the BIA erred in finding that their particular social group claim was not
2 22-68
properly before it, see Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir.
2013).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Honduras.
See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of
torture).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 22-68